Unreported National Court Decisions
N902
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
VELE VEOLE
Waigani
Salika J
1 August 1990
CRIMINAL LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPLICATION TO QUASH INDICTMENT - PLACE OF OFFENCE - PLACE ACCUSED COMMITTED - JURISDICTION OF COMMITTAL COURT QUESTIONED.
Accused committed offence in Kiunga. He was charged and committed to the National Court in the Boroko District Court. Defence questioned the validity of the committal proceedings in that the accused should have been committed to the National Court in Kiunga and that he should have been committed by the Kiunga District Court.
Held:
There is no statutory requirement for the proposition that the Court in the area where offence was committed only should commit the accused to the National Court in the particular area.
No cases cited
Legislations cited:
Criminal Code Act Ch No. 262
District Courts Act Ch No. 40.
Counsel:
Mrs Mogish for State
Mr B. Takin for defence.
SALIKA J:  This accused stands charged that he between the 5th day of May 1988 and the 28th day of September 1988 at Kiunga in Papua New Guinea, whilst being employed by the South Pacific Brewery Limited as a Depot Manager dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of K7,798.80 the property of the South Pacific Brewery Limited.
The State Prosecutor Mrs Mogish presented the indictment and for purpose of arraignment set out brief facts. After I had put the brief facts to the accused and before I could actually arraign the accused counsel for the accused Mr Takin stood up to make the application that he was challenging the indictment on the basis that there was no proper committal proceedings. He then went on to submit that because the offence was committed in Kiunga the committal proceedings should have been conducted in Kiunga. In this case the information was laid at the Boroko District Court. Mr Takin submitted that the Boroko District court had no jurisdiction to commit the accused to the National Court at Waigani and that the Kiunga District Court should have been the committing court. Mr Takin relied on Sections 5 and 15 of the District Courts Act.
I then asked Mr Takin if he was making his application under Section 558 of the Criminal Code Act to quash the indictment to which he said that was so. He indicated that the application was pursuant to s.558 (1) (b) of that Act.
Mr Takin made submissions to the effect that there was no valid committal and consequently no valid indictment. He submitted that the accused was not properly before the court. He argued that the Boroko District Court had no jurisdiction to commit the accused to the National Court at Waigani for an offence that was committed in Kiunga.
Sections 5 and 15 of the District Courts Act read:
S.5     Jurisdiction of Magistrates
Magistrates have and may exercise within and for their jurisdictions the several powers and authorities conferred on them by this or any other law.
S.15    Transfer of proceedings where Court abolished
Where the Judicial and Legal Services Commission issues a proclamation abolishing a District Court, it may, in the same or a subsequent proclamation, direct-
(a)      that the books and records of the Court be transferred to some other District Court named in the proclamation; and
(b)      that all proceedings pending in the first-mentioned Court at the date of its abolition shall be had and determined in the other District Court,
and that other Court has jurisdiction to make all orders and to do all things in relation to those proceedings that could have been made or done by the first-mentioned Court if it had not been abolished.
These two provisions relied on by Mr Takin are of no assistance to determine the issue here. The issue being whether the Boroko District Court had jurisdiction to commit the accused at Waigani for an offence committed in Kiunga.
There is no corresponding provision in relation to proceedings in case of indictable offences as in s.122 and s.123 of the District Courts Act providing for venue of summary cases and adjournment to different places. In proceedings in cases of indictable offences there is no statutory requirement for laying of information only in the place where offence was committed and for committal proceeding to take place only at the place where the offence was committed. This is understable for the reasons that Constitutional provisions be complied with that every person arrested or detained should be taken to court as soon as practicable. I am of the opinion that the Boroko District court did have jurisdiction to commit the accused for an offence committed in Kiunga because the accused has been charged for an indictable offence. For an indictable offence a person can be charged and committed anywhere in Papua New Guinea where convenient and where interests of justice require it.
For a while I thought Mr Takin was not pursuing the interest of his client in that had Mr Takins application been successful and I were to rule the committal proceedings null and void it would have meant that the accused would be taken to Kiunga and have his committed conducted at Kiunga. This accused was committed to stand trial on the 23rd of June 1989. He could have waited for a long time before he could eventually be dealt with.
In the interest of the accused and interest of justice and in the absence of any statutory requirements for committal proceedings to be only conducted at the place of the Commission of the office I refuse to grant the application under S.558 of the Criminal Code to quash the indictment.
Lawyer for state - Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for defendant - Public Solicitor